|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 7:44:23 GMT 1
Mann was "invited" before TWO congressional Committees, as you describe it, because it was his papers that were under attack! You should believe McIntyre because Wegman and North both upheld his criticisms and told Mann he should get some proper statistical expertise from professionals since he was clearly incompetent himself. They also told him not to use bristclecone pines for treering proxies. The same criticism been made about the CRU's statistical "expertise" - non-existent! Pretending otherwise is futile.
Steve McIntyre has statistical expertise far beyond all of the people you mention. IPCC-style Climatology is merely number-crunching. Hansen, Schneider, Mann are ideologists first, enviromentalists second and statisticians nowhere ran.
What have you got against mining, anyway? Without mining we would not have all the useful minerals that have made our level of culture possible. Or do you wish to undermine that culture, get back to hunting and gathering or nomadism?
I guess you are just the green shill that Mr Smith Identified. Paid by the word are you? I can't believe any committee of congress would consider calling YOU as an expert witness, somehow, Havelock. You can't even read a google streetmap of Manhattan!
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 7:50:08 GMT 1
Marchesarosa - are you perhaps confusing me with Lazarus? I thought we had cleared up this misunderstanding.
I am not paid by anyone at the moment having been made redundant from MOD
I don't think your personal attacks on me move the debate any further - just as I don't think personal attacks on you help either.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 9:36:50 GMT 1
Getting back to the topic, could you explain the health of Lobster, Crab, Shrimp and Prawn stocks given your assertion that pH has fallen by 30% and this will affect the ability of sea creatures to form an exoskeleton? Wouldn't they show, at least, signs of the coming catastrophe? Or is this like all AGW "evidence" - whatever is observed is an indicator of AGW. You know - Hot = AGW. Cold = AGW. Wet = AGW. Dry = AGW. Windy = AGW. Calm = AGW. Are you now telling us that thriving and abundant sea life = AGW.
Get a grip man.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 10:01:06 GMT 1
I've been mulling this variability in pH dependent on local conditions assertion. There's a massive amount of shell sand particles suspended in the water column around here quite often. Today, for example, after five days of heavy easterly swell and spring tides. Surely this "local condition" would lead to lower readings of pH than average. It doesn't, surprisingly. The readings are extremely constant....for over 20 years. Possibly the research institute into ocean acidification has been stuffing the data set with readings from under the White Cliffs of Dover where the suspension of alkaline particles is much denser. These types have form. Station "drop out" ring a bell?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 9, 2010 12:15:05 GMT 1
Mary the truth is as always - you will believe anyone that you think is telling you what you want to hear, regardless of qualification.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 9, 2010 12:23:28 GMT 1
Getting back to the topic, could you explain the health of Lobster, Crab, Shrimp and Prawn stocks given your assertion that pH has fallen by 30% and this will affect the ability of sea creatures to form an exoskeleton? Wouldn't they show, at least, signs of the coming catastrophe? "The chemistry is very simple. It is 101. Carbon dioxide makes the water more acidic, that is irrefutable,"
"While the effects are just beginning to be seen in our hatcheries, the oceans are now changing faster than they have ever changed over the last 200 million years," said Richard Freely of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who has been studying ocean acidification for 20 years.
"The effects can be seen in the weaker shells of oysters, clams, mussels, lobsters and shrimp. Smaller-shelled creatures, such as those at the bottom of the food chain, which most fish eat, are also dwindling away," said Freely. "Corals have a hard time forming too." Ocean acidity, said Freely, threatens the entire $2 billion U.S. shellfish industry.
According to the United Nations Environmental Program, if carbon emissions continue on a path of business as usual, scientists predict vast areas of the Pacific, Arctic and Antarctic Oceans will become so corrosive that shellfish will dissolve, causing ripple effects throughout the food web. abcnews.go.com/GMA/Eco/ocean-acidification-hits-northwest-oyster-farms/story?id=10425738&page=1Get a grip man.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 9, 2010 14:15:47 GMT 1
The pH scale is logarithmic, which means that a change of 0.3 equates to a doubling of proton concentration. The observed change in pH is about 0.1, and even less over the last 20 years. So it is no wonder Smithy hasn't detected any change, but it is there, and it is substantial,, and it is increasing.
The pH of human blood is normally between 7.35 to 7.45, so not much room for variation. If we need to keep our pH within such narrow limits, what will happen to marine organisms with the expected change in pH, which is significantly larger?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 9, 2010 14:37:39 GMT 1
"You may only modify a member's karma once each hour. You will be able to exalt or smite again at 9/9/2010 at 14:34" Naughty Stuie! 'WHO'S BEEN TAMPERING WITH MY KARMA??? I had -8 before!!! Dammit '
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 16:10:17 GMT 1
"You may only modify a member's karma once each hour. You will be able to exalt or smite again at 9/9/2010 at 14:34" Naughty Stuie! 'WHO'S BEEN TAMPERING WITH MY KARMA??? I had -8 before!!! Dammit ' Hi Stuart - not sure what this has to do with ocean acidification - did you mean to post it on the thread called 'Karma' in the Welcome board?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 9, 2010 16:46:17 GMT 1
« Reply #72 Yesterday at 22:29 »
If it helps to use me to point out Your own failings, I'm happy to help. Bonne Chance.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 20:00:41 GMT 1
And still the links to environmental pressure groups come.....
Then if all the lobsters are going to "dissolve" shortly and the ph has declined by 0.11, why have I measured no such thing and lobster catches are excellent?
Surely I'd have noticed?
Another in a long list of eco-lies. You guys are doing yourselves no favours here.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 20:09:01 GMT 1
Your ignorance of basic science (pH is a log scale and a change of 0.1 pH points is a change of 30% in acidity) means that I am not suprised that you are unable to observe any detrimental effects.
As I said earlier, if experiments and the laws of science had shown that a large fast moving object takes a long time to stop, would you wait until the train hit you to understand the consequences?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 20:19:09 GMT 1
Ah, the abuse begins...tut tut. I fully understand the pH scale. A 30% reduction in pH would have resulted in observable consequences. No? If not, then why not? Wouldn't this make their conclusions invalid? Wouldn't this make their assertion about exoskeleton degredation incorrect. An hypothesis disproved by observation? Has the scientific process become so perverted in the "environmental" field that anything goes? Probably.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 10, 2010 2:32:44 GMT 1
And still the links to environmental pressure groups come..... Then if all the lobsters are going to "dissolve" shortly and the ph has declined by 0.11, why have I measured no such thing and lobster catches are excellent? Surely I'd have noticed? Another in a long list of eco-lies. You guys are doing yourselves no favours here. What are you on about? You keep harping on that ocean pH hasn't changed, and all the many research papers that empirically show that it is are wrong because you keep lobsters. Then you insist that if the pH has changed it would be having an effect. You have been given a report of the effect it IS having in the Oyster Farms of NW of America. This was determined by expert oceanographers from Oregon State University. But then you come out with this nonsense above about eco lies and environmental pressure groups. Something is killing oyster larvae and the science show it is rising pH. What do you think it is? You asked for an example and you have been given one. If you are going to be impervious to evidence why didn't you just say so at the start and save us all time in trying to have a mature debate with you?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 7:22:25 GMT 1
I fully take on board that Oyster FARMS may be having problems with pH. What is causing the fall in pH though? Oyster larvae are very fragile and many factors can cause problems. Farming is an un-natural process in the sea, one would expect problems. maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Tillamook,+Ore.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Tillamook,+OR,+USA&gl=uk&ei=NM2JTPjKEsS64gbFvZyVCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA Oh dear, oh dear lazarus. I see their hatchery is "up a creek" at a confluence of many water courses with all sorts of crap going on up-stream. But of course their problems stem from "ocean acidification". Conclusion led eco-propaganda - not science. I wouldn't consider hatching oysters on such a site. But what would I know about that, I've only been dealing with shellfish storage for twenty years. Again Get a grip man.
|
|